Sell EF 17-40 f/4 and get EF-S 17-55 f/2.8?

I have a 7d and love my 17-40 when I am outdoors in good light for (1) landscape shots and (2) close range people shots when I don't want to blur the background too much. BUT I am starting to feel limited by its range and max aperture. So I got to thinking....should I sell it and get the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8?


The major advantages to the 17-40 seem to be build quality/weather sealing, EF mount and the letter "L."


The EF-S has potentially better IQ, is a full stop faster, and has IS. But it's not as rugged, might not hold its value as well, is bigger and heavier, and costs $300 more.


What would you do?


I also have the 50 f/1.4 and the 70-200 f/4 IS (by far my favorite of the bunch).


Thanks!

I haven't used either lens, but it sounds like a good plan to me.
Honestly I don't understand why Bryan says that he recommends the 17-40
to crop users in his review of the lens. Why would you take a lens that has been engineered specifically for ultra wide angle performance and crop it? The ISO charts show even the 17-85, with its much larger range and IS as performing only slightly worse, and the 17-55 does better at 2.8 sometimes and easily better at F4.


You are right about the build quality and weather sealing, but I'm not sure about holding resale value better. I hardly ever see 17-55s come up compared to the many 17-40s on my local CL and they never sell cheap. Unless you are in some very treacherous conditions why would build quality ever trump IQ? Don't fall into the trap of being more concerned with your photo gear than your photos :)


Sorry to rant on the 17-40 as a general purpose zoom on crop, but it's been bothering me lately :) Maybe just cause I'd rather see it on my 5D :P

Do it!


As much as the 17-40 is an L with weather sealing and such, IMO the 17-55 is just as good optically and while I'm not encouraging you to stand outside with it during a storm, anything can take a few drops of rain [:P]. The 17-55 seems like it was the lens they forgot to add L to in the name, that's how great it is. I always liked the focal length of the kit lens from when i got my XSi and I've borrowed the 17-55 from my friend a few times and am hugely impressed by the quality of it.


Your other option would be to give me the 17-40mm and I'll sell it and get the 17-55mm! [A] Haha. Happy selling!


Mike

Tough choice if you ask me.


I had to choose between them as well a long time ago: thread


And I must say I was pretty pleased with buying the 17-55. The IS proved to be more of a benefit than I had imagined. However at that time I said I wasn't planning on going full frame, which happened about 2-3 months later [:P] and the weathersealing was not important to me, because my 50D had no use for it. So at that time I chose the 17-55, but my choice nowadays could be different.


Anyway..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thekingb

The EF-S has potentially better IQ, is a full stop faster, and has IS

---

Slightly better IQ perhaps, but don't expect too much. The 17-40 has less vignetting by a whisper and the other factors are in favor(just yet) to the 17-55. It does have the f2.8 aperture and IS, which proved very welcome to me at that time. But at that time, I had no lens with IS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thekingb

But it's not as rugged, might not hold its value as well, is bigger and heavier, and costs $300 more.

---

It is...I lost about 200 Euro's (1/4th of new-price) in just 2-3 months. However I don't think the priced drop very hard from that point after. And no it doesn't have weathersealing, which I (now that I've seen the light) believe is an amazing feature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thekingb

BUT I am starting to feel limited by its range and max aperture

---

I'd doubt the 40-55 range would be that much of a change to trade your lens. Especially since you could use your 70-200 for a lot of things you'd mentioned like the portraits. Max aperture however is a thing where the 17-40 definitely has a disadvantage. The f2.8 of the 17-55 combined with the IS is very helpful in lower light situations and also in landscapes with sunsets etc.


Anyway my conclusion is that it remains a hard choice, since the 17-40 isn't such a bad lens. One question remains...do you really need the wider aperture zoom? Can't you use your 50mm for wider aperture shots?


The way I see it is that with the money you can save on selling the 17-40 and buying the 17-55 you could probably almost buy an 85mm 1.8 for instance...


But if the IS and f2.8 is worth the 300 dollars for you, I don't think you'd really regret it. However it's always a good idea to test the 17-55 in a local shop before selling your 17-40 [;)]


Good luck,


Jan

I don't see why not. The 17-40 was made to be an ultra wide for full frame users. On a cropped body, it becomes more a general purpose lens, but lacking some of the benefits of the 17-55 ef-s (like IS and 2.8).


So if you don't plan to go full frame any time soon, and if you don't need the weather sealing, I'd say go for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thekingb

The EF-S has potentially better IQ,
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

I do not totally agree with this statement. I think at all ends of the zoom range they are probably an even trade in IQ, IMO, for what that is worth. I shoot with an f4.0 lens indoors all the time and do not feel I have to go wider. For shooting portraits with good background blur, you have two other lenses to get that. I would stick with the 17-40. Either way you go is good, they are both excellent lenses.


Mark

I have had both and recently sold both. Not because I didn't like either one, as they are both very fine lenses. The 17-55 was great on my 40D for indoor work. The 17-40 was great on my 5D for outdoor work. However because I also own the 24-105 4L IS I was using that lens on the 5D more and more because of it's versatility, range, and IS. My 40D has become my second camera used for indoor and outdoor sporting events with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS lens. Using the 5D more and more as a walk around lens I thought I actually had more lenses than I really needed. Both the 17-40 and 17-55 held resale value very well especially since Canon's price increase several moths ago. I sold them for darn near what I paid for them new 3-4 years ago. I think you need to decide what you shoot the most and let that determine what lens you need. At this point if I had to pick one it would be the 17-55 but only because I have the 40D and reserving the 5D for lenses designed for FF bodies. As a side note I found the color of the 17-40 a bit contrasty for my liking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clemmb

I shoot with an f4.0 lens indoors all the time and do not feel I have to go wider.

---

Do you have IS on the lens? Maybe I have jittery hands, as I can't reliably shoot indoors with the 17-40. Although maybe now that I have a 7d, which has far better high ISO performance, I will have better results. I should give that a try.


Thanks for all the feedback. I am still thinking this through.


Anyone experience the so-called vacuum cleaner dust issue on the 17-55?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thekingb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clemmb

I shoot with an f4.0 lens indoors all the time and do not feel I have to go wider.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Do you have IS on the lens?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Yes I do. 24-105 I do not feel it helps much till I get 70mm or above. I shoot up to ISO 1250.


Mark

No dust issues here and I used it for weddings for about 2 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thekingb

should I sell it and get the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8?

---

Yes. You'll love it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thekingb

What would you do?

---

If you don't need IS, I suggest the Tamron17-50 f/2.8, it's a lot cheaper but just as sharp. I still use mine regularly.



<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clemmb

I think at all ends of the zoom range they are probably an even trade in IQ,

---

I respectfully disagree. The 17-55 has better contrast, resolution, vignetting, and more:


17-40 @ 17mm f/4 vs 17-55 f/2.8 IS at 17mm f/4


17-40 @ 28mm f/4 vs 17-55 f/2.8 IS at 28mm f/4


17-40 @ 35mm f/4 vs 17-55 f/2.8 IS at 35mm f/4


Even the lowly 18-55 kit lens is sharper than the 17-40 at some focal lengths/f-numbers:


17-40 @ 35mm f/4.5 vs 18-55 f/3.5-f/5.6 at 35mm f/4.5


It isn't really all that surprising considering that the 17-40 was really made for full frame and shines best when stopped down to f/11 or so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

If you don't need IS, I suggest the Tamron17-50 f/2.8, it's a lot cheaper but just as sharp. I still use mine regularly.

---

In this case he could even hold on to his 17-40 [:O]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thekingb

The EF-S has potentially better IQ, is a full stop faster, and has IS. But it's not as rugged, might not hold its value as well, is bigger and heavier, and costs $300 more.


What would you do?

---

I'd get the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. It's a great lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clemmb

I think at all ends of the zoom range they are probably an even trade in IQ,

---

I respectfully disagree.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

I checked these before I made my statement. Of course, dummy me forgot to compare apples to apples. I had the 17-40 on a FF.


I stand corrected.


Mark

I am still new to photographyand I do not own the 17-40 butI did just recently get the 17-55 f/2.8 and i love it. This is a great lens and I can say that it was worth every penny. My brother came into town for July 4th (he has a camera similar to mine) and even he was impressed by the difference this lens made. The only thing that I can say was difficult was the price. It is a lot of money for a non-L class lens. The lack of weather sealing isn't really a problem but the IS and the f/2.8 were really important to me so I made the leap. It is much bigger than I expected but a big lens doesn't really matter to me (I am 6 foot 8), especially if it gives me a better chance to get a good shot. Money is always a factor (especially if this is just a hobby like it is for me) but I would definitely recommend the 17-55 if you can afford it.





Best of luck,


Matt

I have the 17-40 and I never want to get rid of it. I also have a 24-70 in my bag which I actually use mostly and there was a time I thought of getting rid of it, until I tossed on a ex430 II flash on top of my 40d, with my 24-70 and had to walk around myfianc&eacute;esbridal shower. It was sunny outside so I thought, I could get rid of a lot of weight by switching my 24-70 off, so I tossed on the 17-40 and shot all day long with it without a problem. I had some indoor shots that came out great, and the outside shots where the F4 area is at home, the shots came out great as well. I will keep this lens around, just switch out that stupid lens hood you get with the 17-40. I switched it a long time ago with the 17-55 2.8 lens hood and it works out perfect.

SIMPLE:


The 17-40 f/4 L is a nice lens but made for FF users. If your'e going to put it on a cropped body (and sure you won't be going FF any time soon) then I think it's silly to have it on there. Sell it and get either the 17-55 IS (I have one and it's WICKED sharp!) or the 17-50 that Daniel suggested.


I feel like such a nice FF-capable lens mounted on a 1.6x cropped body is a waste.. there are better lenses out there for that. Now 17mm on a FF body, that's a different story!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordan

I feel like such a nice FF-capable lens mounted on a 1.6x cropped body is a waste..

---

I don't understand why it's a "waste." What is wasted? Certainly not center sharpness, as nice L glass on an APS-C body takes advantage of a great lens' center sharpness and can all but eliminate corner softness and vignetting issues. Why is that a bad thing? For that matter,I use the 70-200 f/4 IS (L glass made for a full frame) on my 7d as often as possible, and the results are often stunning -- certainly not a waste.


Is it money that's wasted? Not in this case. The 17-40L is $300 less than the 17-55.


Wasted focal length? Not in this case. I agree that it's hard to get really wide on an APS-C body, and that 17mm on a FF body is amazing, but the 17-40 and the 17-55 are identical on the wide end.


To me, the relevant question when deciding on a lens of similar focal lengths is this: which lens provides the best combination of IQ, build quality and resale value for the cost? EF vs. EF-S is essentially irrelevant, except that EF-S lens sometimes lag in resale value.


I just don't follow the logic....


BTW, I've decided to stick it out with the 17-40 for now, mostly due to cost considerations, and also because I can eek out higher shutter speeds in low light due to my new(ish) 7d's high ISO performance. Thanks to everyone for their input!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thekingb

I don't understand why it's a "waste." What is wasted?

---

I can't speak for Jordan or you, of course, but for me personally, it is money and sharpness that is wasted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thekingb

Certainly not center sharpness, as nice L glass on an APS-C body takes advantage of a great lens' center sharpness and can all but eliminate corner softness and vignetting issues.

---

What you are saying is the same thing that 99% of photographers believe, and it is repeated by many magazines, web sites, forums, and probably even books on photography. So by taking that position you definitely have a lot of good company.





However, it is completely wrong.





And it's especially untrue in the case of the 17-40. Even the $100 kit lens is sharper. This urban legend persists because of two common flaws in the method used to compare different format sizes: using different iris diameters and different magnifications. These factors must be equalized between sensor sizes to provide any sort of useful comparison baseline, and when that is done, it becomes clear that larger sensors are sharper (usually by even more than you would expect based on the lens price differential).
<div></div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

And it's especially untrue in the case of the 17-40. Even the $100 kit lens is sharper. This urban legend persists because of two common flaws in the method used to compare different format sizes: using different iris diameters and different magnifications. These factors must be equalized between sensor sizes to provide any sort of useful comparison baseline, and when that is done, it becomes clear that larger sensors are sharper (usually by even more than you would expect based on the lens price differential).
<div></div>

---

I am really curious to hear more about this. You mention "larger sensors." I certainly agree that full frame sensors generally produce better, sharper images that resolve more detail (and I would have a FF body if money were no object). But I think you are saying something different above, although I am not sure I follow you. Please elaborate. I am by no means an expert or even amateur when it comes to optics, so I'd love to hear more.


Remember, though, that the only relevant comparison for me is the overall IQ of two different lenses on my 7d. You seem to be saying that the 18-55 kit lens would produce a better (or at least sharper) image on a 7d than the 17-40. Are you saying that would be true at identical focal lengths (ie, at say 24mm on each lens)? Or when you adjust focal lengths for the crop factor (ie at 17mm on the kit and 27mm on the 17-40)? In either case? My experience doesn't bear that out. Although the 18-55 is surprisingly good for a cheap lens, the color and contrast of the 17-40 far exceed the kit lens; and there's only so much sharpness the eye can manage anyway.


And are you saying that EF-S lenses will always be better on crop cameras than EF lens in the same/similar focal range?


Thanks!


Brian

The EF-S holds it's value very well, in fact I sold mine about a month ago for more than I paid in 2008 [:D]

I had the 17-40mm L as well as the 17-55mm. The 17-55mm stayed on my 40D all the time. Eventually, I used the 17-40mm on my 5D MK II, but while good, it just did not seem to be that good, so I sold it and bought a 17mm prime and a 35mm L.


Unfortunately, I found that after buying the 35mm L, the 40D just gathered dust so I sold it and later reluctantly sold the 17-55.

Just throwing my support behind the 17-55. It is a wonderful lens. I will say, though, that a few times when I'm leaving the house, that I debate whether or not to take it with me, because it is pretty darn heavy, and big. Sometimes I just grab my zooms and primes, and then my s90 for wide shots. I kind of wish I still just had my 18-55 kit lens for times when I'm shooting in good lighting and don't need a really shallow DOF. But when shooting in low light, the 17-55 has been outstanding. A lot of great shots at concerts with this lens, and the IS definitely makes a difference. I debated the 17-40 for a long time, and the fact that I shoot a lot of low light shots was the deciding factor.


One thing I recently discovered, though, is what a great lens it is for video on the 7D. Great DOF for video, and pretty good focal length range for most shots.


Also- I'm on my second copy. The first one was really bad at the wide end, even after microadjustment. Both copies were from Adorama refurbished. The second one seems much much better. But definitely check out the focus at both ends when you get it.